The Karnataka High Court has said that a gift deed executed by a senior citizen can be declared as null and void under the Senior Citizens Act only if a stipulation is contained therein that the transferee shall maintain him or her in return. This was in the case of Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka & OthersWRIT APPEAL No.573/2022) and was presided over by a division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice K S Hemalekha.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
It is the case of the 3rd respondent, who is the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that he had purchased a property bearing Municipal Assessment No.3327/3081 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 50 feet situated at K.R.S. Agrahara, Ward No.22, Kunigal Town under a registered Sale Deed, dated 1.12.2006, in the name of the appellant/Nanjappa with a condition that the same has to be re-conveyed in his name (3rd respondent) and the entire sale consideration was paid by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the appellant/Nanjappa herein executed a registered Gift Deed, dated 23.2.2011, in favour of the 3rd respondent/M.B. Nagaraju in respect of the said property clearly mentioning in the Gift Deed that the entire sale consideration is paid by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter on 25.2.2016, the appellant/Nanjappa filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for a declaration that the Gift Deed is null and void and in turn, the Assistant Commissioner by the order, dated 20.8.2016, allowed the application filed by the present 4 appellant/Nanjappa, who was the 3rd respondent before the learned Single Judge and cancelled the registered Gift Deed, dated 23.2.2011, with a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Anekal, to reregister the right in respect of the said property in favour of present appellant/Nanjappa, which was challenged by the 3rd respondent/M.B. Nagaraju by filing a writ petition i.e., before this Court for the relief sought for.
JUDGEMENT:
The court said in the absence of any condition stipulated in the documents, the provisions of Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act are not attracted.”The bench placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara -vs- Ramti Devi and noted that that the commissioner ignored the conditions stipulated under the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Senior Citizens Act, as held by the Supreme Court.
It further added “Though our conscious is in favour of the welfare of the Senior Citizens considering the scope and object of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, but our hands are tied in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara, wherein while interpreting the very provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the said Act, it has been held that the two conditions must be stipulated in the document, which is binding on all including this Court as contemplated under Article 141 of the Constitution of India,”
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY PRATIKSHYA P. BEURA
